Below is the complete code which implements the uncertain reasoning facility of Reasoning with Certainty Factors. The implementation is exactly as described with a few extra considerations to check the rule interpreter is running before returning an uncertain value, that the objects have a certainty-factor slot and so on.
;;; -----SIMPLE REASONING WITH UNCERTAINTY FACTORS ----
(in-package kw-user)
;;; default certainty factor
(defvar *c-factor* 1)
;;; implication strength of a rule
(defvar *implication-strength* 1)
(defun default-c-factor ()
"if the forward chainer is not running, certainty
factor is just 1"
(if *in-interpreter*
(* *implication-strength* *c-factor*)
1))
;;; uncertain objects need a slot to store their
;;; `probability' this slot defaults to the value
;;; returned by default-c-factor
(def-kb-class uncertain-kb-object ()
((c-factor :initform (default-c-factor)
:initarg :c-factor)))
(defun object-c-factor (obj)
"if an object has no uncertainty slot, return 1 (i.e.
certain)"
(if (slot-exists-p obj `c-factor)
(slot-value obj `c-factor)
1))
(defun inst-c-factor (inst)
"the certainty factor of an instantiation"
(token-c-factor (inst-token inst)))
(defun token-c-factor (token)
"the certainty factor of an ANDed list of objects
(just multiply them)"
(reduce `* (mapcar `object-c-factor token)))
(defun implication-strength (val)
"for a rule to set the implication strength"
(setq *implication-strength* val))
;;; this function increases the certainty of the object
;;; which is the first argument by an amount dependent
;;; on the combined certainty of the remaining
;;; arguments
(defun add-evidence (obj &rest token)
"increments the certainty of obj based on the
certainty of token"
(let ((c-f (slot-value obj `c-factor)))
(setf (slot-value obj `c-factor)
(+ c-f
(* (- 1 c-f) *implication-strength*
(token-c-factor token))))))
;;; this tactic is dynamic as the certainty factor slot
;;; gets changed by calling add-evidence
(deftactic certainty :dynamic (i1 i2)
"a conflict resolution tactic to prefer more certain
instantiations"
(> (inst-c-factor i1) (inst-c-factor i2)))
;;; Before firing a rule this meta-interpreter just
;;; sets the value of *c-factor* to the certainty of
;;; the instantiation so that any new uncertain objects
;;; made get this (times *implication-strength*) as
;;; their certainty. Also sets *implication-strength*
;;; to 1 as a default in case the rule does not set it.
(defrule uncertain-context :backward
((uncertain-context)
<--
(start-cycle)
(instantiation ?inst)
((progn (setq *c-factor* (inst-c-factor ?inst))
(setq *implication-strength* 1)))
(fire-rule ?inst)
(cut)
(uncertain-context)))
Below are some example rules using this facility for a simple car maintenance problem.
;;; ---------------- SOME EXAMPLE RULES ---------------
;;; to run: (run-diagnose)
(def-kb-struct start)
(def-kb-class symptom (uncertain-kb-object)
((type :initarg :type)))
(def-kb-class fault (uncertain-kb-object)
((type :initarg :type)))
(def-kb-class remedy (uncertain-kb-object)
((type :initarg :type)))
;;; this context sets up the initial hypotheses and
;;; gathers evidence this does not need the meta
;;; -interpreter as that's only necessary for
;;; transparent assignment of certainty factors to new
;;; objects
(defcontext diagnose :strategy ())
(defrule start-rule :forward
:context diagnose
(start ?s)
-->
(assert (symptom ? type over-heat c-factor 1))
(assert (symptom ? type power-loss c-factor 1))
(assert (fault ? type lack-of-oil c-factor 0.5))
(assert (fault ? type lack-of-water c-factor 0))
(assert (fault ? type battery c-factor 0))
(assert (fault ? type unknown c-factor 0))
(context (cure)))
; next context onto agenda
(defrule diagnose1 :forward
:context diagnose
(symptom ?s type over-heat)
(fault ?f type lack-of-water)
-->
((implication-strength 0.9))
((add-evidence ?f ?s)))
(defrule diagnose2 :forward
:context diagnose
(symptom ?s type overheat)
(fault ?f type unknown)
-->
((implication-strength 0.1))
((add-evidence ?f ?s)))
(defrule diagnose3 :forward
:context diagnose
(symptom ?s type wont-start)
(fault ?f type battery)
-->
((implication-strength 0.9))
((add-evidence ?f ?s)))
(defrule diagnose4 :forward
:context diagnose
(symptom ?s type wont-start)
(fault ?f type unknown)
-->
((implication-strength 0.1))
((add-evidence ?f ?s)))
(defrule diagnose5 :forward
:context diagnose
(symptom ?s type power-loss)
(fault ?f type lack-of-oil)
-->
((implication-strength 0.9))
((add-evidence ?f ?s)))
(defrule diagnose6 :forward
:context diagnose
(symptom ?s type power-loss)
(fault ?f type unknown)
-->
((implication-strength 0.1))
((add-evidence ?f ?s)))
;;; any two distinct symptoms strengthens the
;;; hypothesis that there's something more serious
;;; going wrong
(defrule diagnose7 :forward
:context diagnose
(symptom ?s1 type ?t1)
(symptom ?s2 type ?t2)
(test (not (eq ?t1 ?t2)))
(fault ?f type unknown)
-->
((add-evidence ?f ?s1 ?s2)))
;;; here we need the meta-interpreter to assign the
;;; right certainty factors to the remedy objects. Also
;;; use certainty as a conflict resolution tactic to
;;; print the suggested remedies out in order
(defcontext cure :strategy (priority certainty)
:meta ((uncertain-context)))
(defrule cure1 :forward
:context cure
(fault ?f type unknown)
-->
((implication-strength 0.1))
(assert (remedy ? type cross-fingers))
((implication-strength 0.9))
(assert (remedy ? type go-to-garage)))
(defrule cure2 :forward
:context cure
(fault ?f type lack-of-oil)
-->
(assert (remedy ? type add-oil)))
(defrule cure3 :forward
:context cure
(fault ?f type lack-of-water)
-->
(assert (remedy ? type add-water)))
(defrule cure4 :forward
:context cure
(fault ?f type battery)
-->
(assert (remedy ? type new-battery)))
(defrule print-cures :forward
:context cure
:priority 5
(remedy ?r type ?t)
-->
((format t "~%Suggest remedy ~a with certainty-factor
~a" ?t (slot-value ?r `c-factor))))
(defun run-diagnose ()
(reset)
(make-instance `start)
(infer :contexts `(diagnose)))
KnowledgeWorks and Prolog User Guide (Windows version) - 26 Feb 2015